While China is attempting to achieve “most favored nation” status with the US, it has refused Washington’s pressure to improve its human rights record, saying that China and the US have different social systems and ideologies and that they should not interfere in each other’s internal affairs. China stresses “two systems for two different countries and peaceful coexistence.”
If former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) had been more broad-minded and farsighted by emphasizing the differences between Taiwan and China and respecting the actual situation, then the ideal of “two systems for two different countries” would have resulted in peaceful relations between Taiwan and China while the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was in power.
The dispute over Taiwan stems from China being unable to accept the differences in political, social and ideological systems between Taiwan and China and the tyrannical way in which Beijing wants to make Taiwan part of China. In Chinese, “one” (yi, 一) and “difference” (yi, 異) share the same pronunciation, but have different tones. This slight difference in tone is an unlimited source of trouble.
Unless China faces facts and gives up its insistence on things being “one” and instead accepts “difference,” Taiwan will have no choice but to go off in search of the common strategic interests it shares with other counties around the world. This is the only way Taiwan can resist China’s insistence on things being “one” to uphold the “differences” that actually exist.
DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has proposed the idea of “seeking harmony, but reserving the right to disagree” and “seeking agreement in a spirit of conciliation.” This takes things out of the framework fixed on “one” and highlights the differences in the values, system and identity between Taiwan and China in order to make the search for “peaceful and stable relations” a common interest and responsibility shared by Taiwan and China. This is something the vast majority of Taiwanese can agree is the lowest common denominator of “two systems for two different countries and peaceful coexistence.”
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) reaction to Tsai’s proposal highlights the similarities between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). These two evil twins are in bed together, both clinging to the shaky so-called “1992 consensus” in an attempt to turn Taiwan into a part of China. The way this supposedly makes Taiwan a part of China’s internal affairs has been the subject of strong protest and debate.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government has even gone as far as pulling out Taiwan’s garbage Constitution to put pressure on Tsai. That Constitution is a strong symbol of how the KMT raped the people of Taiwan. That Constitution, which splits “China” into two areas, was drawn up by the KMT long before Taiwan’s democratization and is out of touch with the current situation.
While the DPP government was unable to overhaul the Constitution or formulate a new one, their insistence on upholding the “differences” that exist between Taiwan and China and the concepts of independence and autonomy were well respected by the international community.
However, the way the Ma government follows China’s idea of the “one China” principle allows members of the international community to say that the People’s Republic of China is the only side they will deal with.
A constitution is a fundamental piece of legislation that represents the will of a people while also regulating governmental organization and the rights and interests of a population. The “constitution” that Ma supposedly obeys is one that is based on contradictions and distortions and will lead to the end of Taiwan.
James Wang is a commentator based in Taipei.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Swiftly following the conclusion of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) China trip, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled 10 new policy measures for Taiwan. The measures, covering youth exchanges, agricultural and fishery imports, resumption of certain flights and cultural and media cooperation, appear to offer “incentives” for cross-strait engagement. However, viewed within the political context, their significance lies not in promoting exchanges but in redefining who is qualified to represent Taiwan in dialogue with China. First, the policy statement proposes a “normalized communication mechanism” between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This would shift cross-strait interaction from
RSS